Replies

If you want a good interpretation of the 9th for layman, read Bork's book, "the Tempting of America".

JMHO.

"Would this not equally apply to drinking more than one milkshake? "

The simple answer is to use the 'rational basis' test.
States cant simply make 'being a redhead' illegal. They need a rational state interest to do what they do. Preserving the public morality is a state interest.
beyond that ... read Bork.

"I see this as a pro-freedom ruling. "
Sorry. Scalia and Thomas are rarely wrong. They are right here. This ruling does not follow the constitution.
That makes it anything but 'pro-freedom'. that makes it corrosive to the rule-of-law.

"Look at California, they have taken their "state's rights" and run that place into the ground. "

Sorry. you are knocking democracy, a feeble strawman to support judicial legislation. Cali would be fine if corrupt election officials didnt let illegals voting and they had better leaders. Cali has every right to elect Grey davis, they have themselves to blame for putting him there. but that can be correct ... WHO DO WE VOTE OUT WHEN THE USSC MAKES A BAD RULING?

"The 9th either means something or it doesn't. "

It means *something* - it does *not* mean carte blanche for judicial activism to overturn state laws.

If "abortion on demand" is the answer, it's a pretty stupid question!